Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 15 October 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by iantresman

Introduction

This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views as either (a) Insignificant or non-notable, or worse (b) Pseudoscience. This results in the unbalanced "pushing" of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV).

I agree that there is no place in science article (a) for pseudoscience (b) for any kind of information described in a pseudoscientific manner, ie. failing WP:RS (c) that the mainstream view should be described as such.

I note that editors claiming in their original Statement that I push or promote pseudoscience in scientific articles, include (a) ScienceApologist (b) FeloniousMonk (c) Guettarda (d) Joke137 The onus is on them to (a) present evidence from reliable sources (not their opinions), that the subject I am writing about is recognised as pseudoscience (b) Diffs showing that I am "pushing" it as defined in POV pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view".)

Evidence

• Examples of misrepresentation of minority scientific views as pseudoscience (without reliable sources)

• Eric Lerner and/or his work or worse . My request for a reliable source
• Plasma cosmology
• Tired light

• Examples of discrediting, or ad hominems against individuals, (without reliable sources). WP:LIVING tells us that "poorly sourced controversial material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages" (WP:NPA does not apply to non-editors, though WP:LIVING implies it should?)

• Eric Lerner (a) Removal of awards (b) Discrediting "theories" by calling then "ideas" (c) Replacing positive reviews with negative ones
• Dr. László Körtvélyessy, Removing academic credentials "physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences." , changing his speciality to "self described"
• Ricardo Carezani, Labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Ricardo Carezani as well-known Woo-Woos"
• Halton Arp, Suggesting his "pathological skepticism"
• Tom van Flandern "out-and-out insane"
• User:Iantresman (me!): my "close-minded ignorance" , not to "be a dick" , I am "very incompetent in this regard",, I am an "avowed Velikovskian", I am a "nonscientist layman" , I am an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" I actually have a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, and a Masters degree in Computer Sciences; while they are over 20 years old, I'm not unfamiliar with the academia.

• Examples of RfD or blanking entire article: Intrinsic redshift with no discussion , RfD Subsequent blanking a rewriting

• Examples of discrediting individuals, or minority scientific views by association with claimed pseudoscience (eg. Creation science, Geocentrism, Velikovsky), with no reliable sources:

• The Electric Universe (book): "The book includes ideas culled from a variety of sources from those interested in plasma cosmology to Velikovsky"
• Redshift quantization: Association with Creationism and geocentrism,
• Plasma Universe: "the term "Plasma Universe" fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions.. "
• Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science",
• Dusty plasma: Mis-association with "electric universe" and bias against "Plasma universe" book. See section "Inappropriate"

• Examples of use of the Weasel word phrase "The (mainstream) scientific community", when there is no reliable source supporting this view, nor indicating the proportion of the scientific community that is even familiar with a subject.

• Redshift quantization: "the consensus in the astronomical community"
• Eric Lerner: "regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community"
• Plasma universe: "considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified."
• Pseudoscience: "Fields considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" (User:FeloniousMonk) , (User:KillerChihuahua) ], (user:Jefffire) , (user:Jim62sch)

• Examples of POV-pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."), in this case the mainstream scientific point of view.

• Redshift: Removal of alternative redshift theories, , even from "See also" links, (Only redshift-like optical phenomenon are included)
• Galaxy rotation curve (showing only one alternative POV)

• Examples of mis-using Undue weight against significant minority scientific views.

• Redshift, Near exclusion of Wolf effect (a type of redshift, see article for notability and references) , , yet, the original paper on the Wolf Effect is cited over 100 times., Prof. Daniel James confirms there have been over 100 papers on the topic

• Examples of over-riding information from reliable sources without providing own sources (ie. unsubstantiated opinion):

• Wolf effect: ScienceApologist (writing as Joshuaschroeder) personally disagrees that the Wolf effect is a redshift, and provides no verification. , yet, sources describe the Wolf Effect as (A) "a new redshift mechanism" (See article, first sentence), (B) "Doppler like" (ie. like a Doppler redshift, see article, first quote). (C) As a "redshift"... confirmed by author-come-Wiki-editor (Dfvjames) Prof. Dan James, author of several peer reviewed papers on the subject, (D) As a "Redshift" (see article refs ) by the person who predicted and effect, Prof. Emil Wolf (E) By other peer reviewed researchers see article refs )

• Wolf effect: Removing an image based on a peer-reviewed illustration,) claiming: (a) Image removed claimed "because it is inaccurate" (b) Claimed in violation of WP:V , or (c) "Claimed the image is included is a bad one" (d) Put up for deletion, without explanation,

• Examples of biased editing, and not providing reliable sources on request:

• Timeline of cosmology, this edit (a) removes two entries that are both verifiable, but described as "inaccurate" (b) changes one entry to read "now-discounted concept". This is biased because there are no other entries on the page described as "now-discounted" (even though there are others), and several requests for a reliable source confirming (i) the original inaccuracies (ii) confirming the discounted theory, have not been forthcoming. See Talk section "Discounted Ambiplasma theory"
• Wolf effect, in the section "Wolf effect and Quasars", this edit removes a quote taken from a reliable source (beginning: ".. the observed spectral shifts may be due to other causes has been a subject of intense controversy .. "), and replaces it with a speculative version (in the introduction, ".. apparently a reference to the controversies"), that has no citations, and presents a mainstream view as fact.
• Redshift: I requested a source for a statement which I believe to be contrived,, but I contend that the reference provided (to three books, no page numbers, nor quotes), is too vague. However, after several requests for a specific quote, none are forthcoming, and I've provided my own specific quotes which are ignored.

• Examples of suppression, and double standards, all in Redshift quantization:

• Suppression of peer reviewed material: Removal of quote claimed not to be peer reviewed,, removal of positive parts of peer reviewed quote,, removal of peer reviewed positive quote (see "Hodge concluded .."),
• Double standards: Inclusion of material from self-published sources on Creationism, Geocentrism,
• ... and consequently drawing conclusions after suppression of papers above, see "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence.." (because the two papers providing evidence have been removed), and "consequently most cosmologists dispute .." (which one or two papers do not support).

Summary

I've added my own emphases:

• "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..."(Undue_weight)
• "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"(Fairness_of_tone)
• "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"(NPOV on minority views)

So why are some editors trying to exclude minority views?

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

Previous attempts at dispute resolution of possible interest

• 2005-12-03 RfC, Redshift
• 2006-01-04 Administrators'_noticeboard, Intrinsic redshift
• 2006-01-04 Mediation Cabal, Tired light
• 2006-01-07 Administrators'_noticeboard, Intrinsic redshift
• 2006-01-23 Administrators'_noticeboard, Repeated personal attacks
• 2006-02-11 Mediation Cabal, Electric Universe
• 2006-02-11 Request for Mediation, Plasma Universe
• 2006-03-19 Mediation Cabal, Redshift
• 2006-03-31 Administration noticeboard, Plasma Universe
• 2006-03-31 Administration noticeboard, Galaxy rotation problem
• 2006-05-27 Admin Noticeboard, Disruption of new article Plasma Universe
• |2006-09-11 Personal attack intervention noticeboard and subsequent |Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents block discussion

Regarding working on pseudoscience in general

Some of the best and most competent expert Misplaced Pages contributors have left over harassment by pseudoscience supporters:

Regarding Ian Tresman in particular

• Ian Tresman sees Misplaced Pages as a chance to promulgate minority views Post at another forum where Ian tried to encourage meat puppetry.
• Ian Tresman believes his support of non-standard cosmologies is fighting dogmatism
• Ian Tresman believes that qualifying the support of scientists about controversial fringe/pseudoscience should be limitted
• Ian Tresman routinely uses search-engine results as a replacement for careful research, often not even reading the papers he tries to cite instead resorting to bean-counting references that have a term he searched for in the paper. He routinely fails to evaluate whether or not the use of the term corresponds to the point he is trying to make. an entire section of a talkpage dealing with this

--ScienceApologist 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Eric Lerner in particular

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elerner

Problem with Ian Tresman's so-called "evidence"

Much of Ian Tresman's "evidence" is couched around two different motives:

1. Desire to see his pet ideas related to catastrophism, non-standard astronomy, etc. promulgated on Misplaced Pages
2. Basic ignorance in the fields of astrophysics, physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences in general

Ian is an interesting case because he does selectively research but fails to comprehensively research. So many of his characterizations are inaccurate, misleading, or worse.

We begin: This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views

--it is incorrect to call this "scientific minority" in many cases. There are a few scientists who eke out an acceptance on the fringe of the astrophysics community that Ian has tried to include, but many cases these "minority scientists" are so far away from the mainstream as to be ignored. Thus, the "insignificant" and "non-notable" monikers used to explain why these ideas are either excluded or marginalized in articles on mainstream subjects. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is very clear on this matter, and Ian has tried to change the wording on numerous occasions to accomodate his "minority views" more easily in Misplaced Pages.

What are these subjects Ian writes about?

Ian started out at Misplaced Pages by editting Immanuel Velikovsky . The pseudoscientific nature of Velikovsky's yammerings were noted by Carl Sagan and others. This popular critique of these ideas has led to many catastrophists (such as Ian) to reposition their advocacy toward less overtly catastrophist positions and in the process have consolidated (mostly on the internet) resources that attack the things they wish to attack from a number of angles. When Misplaced Pages appeared, many of these people were attracted by the open nature and began nearly spamming the encyclopedia until basic physics and astrophysics articles were almost unrecognizable. When I arrived here, articles like Big Bang and redshift were riddled with innuendo, half-truths, and even patent nonsense. Cleaning it up made a lot of people angry, but I have persisted in my efforts despite the noise.

Ian's basic problem is that he is narrow-minded and hopelessly out-of-date when it comes to evaluating fringe subjects and the mainstream subjects they attack/criticize. This means that he takes a small number of sources from, in many cases, decades ago and waves them around demanding that they be included in his chosen article to edit, whether they are editorially meaningful or not. For example, while there may be a dozen papers over the last 40 years that deal with redshift quantization, there are literally thousands dealing with other more prosaic subjects that we report in the redshift article. Ian wants to see redshift quantization mentioned on redshift. WP:NPOV#Undue weight seems to support my position that it doesn't belong there.

I'll be adding diffs to this exposition at a later date. --ScienceApologist 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Primer on some of the subjects of this RfArb

Here is a primer of the basic ideas that Ian POV-pushes about (from most out-there to most mainstream)

• Electric universe (concept) -- A harebrained idea that dismisses almost all of astrophysics outright in favor of an electrical engineer's wet dream about the way the universe is.
• Intrinsic redshift -- Pie-in-the-sky fantasy (that violated Occam's razor, by the way) of certain non-mainstream cosmology proponents who claim that there is another way redshifts happen other than that which is seen on redshift. Why do they want to do this? Because the Hubble Law matches the expanding universe which, for sundry reasons, they don't like.
• Tired light -- proposed as an alternative in the early days of cosmology, it has popped up from time-to-time only to be knocked down by many different cosmologists. Most famously, Peebles showed that tired light could not account for many of the features observed in our universe and often tired light is mentioned as a pedagogical exercise in what a falsified idea looks like in astrophysics. There are an extreme few who keep trying, and there are those hoping to make their prominence greater on Misplaced Pages.
• Plasma cosmology -- A very underdeveloped idea that has taken the form today as a direct assault on the Big Bang. Ignored by most cosmologists and generally poorly considered because of a lack of rigor compared to the standard cosmological paradigm. Eric Lerner, a private researcher from New Jersey who dropped out of grad school is perhaps the most prominent proponent of this idea (and also edits at Misplaced Pages).
• nonstandard cosmologies -- the history of cosmology has a dominant conflict between the steady state theory and big bang theory. There still persist a small number of holdouts who support nonstandard cosmologies. There are generally more non-experts who adhere to such things than experts. I recently began rewriting this article from a historical perspective with the hopes of creating an article that was less likely to be spammed by original research
• Halton Arp -- respected observational astronomer who likes to look for oddball associations and weird objects. This obsession has led him to create a catalog that is still used by astronomers today. However, it has also caused him to become a pathological skeptic toward all things in the standard deviation, including standard cosmology, explanations of quasars, black holes, etc. He's most famous for proposing that intrinsic redshifts are associated strongly with quasars that he believes are spit out of the cores of AGN. Very few others take this suggestion seriously. Being out in the tails of the distribution, Arp is fond of pushing the envelope ever towards the fringe. He tends to be championed, therefore, by the usual suspects and is overrepresented at Misplaced Pages as a result.
• Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.
• Wolf Effect -- An actual effect in optics that the researchers thought might resolve the quasar controversies of the 1970s (now resolved in a completely different way) by actually being the intrinsic redshift non-mainstream researchers were hoping for. However, the research has surpassed what the Wolf Effect people proposed as a mechanism for quasar redshifts. The practical difficulties of getting the coincidences required to produce a Wolf Effect means that it is a curio in physical optics -- an important one but certainly not worthy of more than passing mention on a decent, reliable, verifiable, and NPOV treatment of redshift.

Comment by William M. Connolley

Misplaced Pages has a problem with pseudoscience, minority POV-pushers, and not enough involvement by mainstream scientists (and OK, I have a conflict-of-interest to declare over climate change (oooopsss... and I just realised I blocked Iantresman)). Wiki gives too much weight to pseudo/minority science, which leads to terrible things like Hillman leaving.

I support the comments of SA (above) and Pj and FM (on the RFA page). A couple of people have said things like “Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature - a weird strawman. Of course mainstream science simply ignores pseudoscience, what else would you expect?

Given previous history, I doubt the arbcomm will (can?) solve this - but something needs to be done... William M. Connolley 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Pjacobi

IMHO things will get rather clear when the evidence presented by Iantresman is carefully read and compared to his description of the evidence.

I'll try to dissect one randomly picked item as an example:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Non-standard_cosmology&diff=24423736&oldid=24423168
• Iantresmans description of this edit: Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science" (see above)
• What's really in the edit
  • sentence 1: Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science are all terms used to describe ideas that are proposed that are considered by the scientific community to either lack explanatory power or are incomplete compared to the accepted scientific theories.
  • sentence 2: All the ideas discussed in this article may fall under some or all of these categories as each one has major flaws that have caused them to be considered outside the scientific mainstream.
  • sentence 3: Some of the ideas were at one time considered possible explanations but have since been dismissed in favor of the Big Bang.
  • sentence 4: Other ideas have never had wide acceptance.
  • sentence 5: All nonstandard cosmologies rely on a rejection of the major features of the Big Bang which are considered problematic by the proponents of the ideas for a number of reasons ranging from religion to claimed skepticism.
• Sentences 3 to 5 are unproblematic and I assume not related to Iantresman's reading.
• Sentence 1 states, after simplifying the sentence structure:
  • ideas that are proposed that are considered by the scientific community to either lack explanatory power or are incomplete compared to the accepted scientific theories Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science.
    • A general statement, introducing and wikilinking labels used for ideas lacking explanatory power compared to mainstream
• Sentence 2 includes two statements:
  • 2a All the ideas discussed in this article may fall under some or all of these categories
    • This part may be open to misreading, but can easily be read at not giving a summary POV statement where exactly nonstandard cosmology is on the scale of differently bad science
  • 2b as each one has major flaws that have caused them to be considered outside the scientific mainstream.
    • We have to trust the judgement of the scientific mainstream to some extent. Misplaced Pages can't compete with the effort going into this judgement. Misplaced Pages isn't the Court of Appeals of the scientific process

Sorry for this diff autopsy which may be considered to be not exactly evidence.

Pjacobi 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by user:Bubba73

The pseudoscience problem is much larger than the conflict between ScienceApologist and Iantresman, and much larger than just the pseudoscience article itself. I'd like to touch on that.

I think that the problem of pseudoscience is the biggest threat to Misplaced Pages today (vandalism could be handled). There are many editors with pro-pseudoscience viewpoints that are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or a blog to push their point of view, often at the exclusion of the scientific viewpoint. (Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, wikipedia is not a blog, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.)

There are many editors that are pushing the pro-pseudoscience agenda and attacking people who are anti-pseudoscience. For instance, this is the way the Philip J. Klass article was on June 6, 2006. Notice the vitriol in the "criticism" section, and the length of that section. Finally the criticism section was removed on July 20, 2006: diff. Yet today, an editor is calling factual information about Klass "praise" and calling for more criticism: diff.

In the article Immanuel Velikovsky, pro-pseudoscience editors delete factual, referenced material. I put in most or all of this factual material, referenced from a reliable source, Philip Plait, here is the diff.

In the article Green Fireballs I entered factual material referenced from a book by Smithsonian Institution aerospace historian Curtis Peebles, which was published by the Smithsonian. Pro-pseudoscience POV-pushers won't let that factual, referenced material stay in the article, here is the diff.

That is only a few samples out of many. The articles Majestic 12 and Roswell UFO Incident contain many more of them (back around late 2005 and early 2006, at least). The article Billy Meier and Natasha Demkina may have had such edits (although I wasn't involved in the last one).

In the CSICOP article, an editor who fails to understand the difference between aura (symptom) and aura (paranormal) diff and then engages in hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and its talk page.

I wholeheartedly agree with ScienceApologist when he said "Some of the best and most competent expert Misplaced Pages contributors have left over harassment by pseudoscience supporters". I know of two such editors, Hillman mentioned there was one of them.

Myself, I edit mostly chess articles now. I have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to try to improve Misplaced Pages. I have bought 10 to 20 books simply to read and use as sources for Misplaced Pages articles. I have calculated that I spend about 30 minutes of time for each two paragraphs I've edited in Misplaced Pages. I've spent too much time, money, and effort contributing to Misplaced Pages in a positive way to have it reverted by pro-pseudoscience POV-pushers (the above are only a few examples). I have over 6,000 edits on several topics, and I don't think I have ever been reverted except by pro-pseudoscience editors and by people who believe that the Moon landings were a hoax (see Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations), which is basically the same thing as a pseudoscience.

There are a couple of projects (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pseudoscience) and a category "Wikipedians who oppose quackery", but they have not been successful of stemming the tide of pro-pseudoscience POV-pushing. If you look at the articles listed by those projects, there are many articles that are subject to pro-pseudoscience pushing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cyde Weys

The only neutral POV is a scientific POV

It's true, science is pretty much the definition of neutral point of view. Science is the only way of looking at the world that is dispassionate, methodical, fact-based, evidence-based, and truly tells us more about the very nature of the things. Misplaced Pages strives for a neutral point of view, and so we must necessarily take the viewpoint of real science versus pseudoscientific bullshit. In real science there are hypotheses, conjectures, et al (such as string theory), but these are all real science, and we do an excellent job of covering them. Roswell aliens, crystal healing, Moon hoaxes, homeopathy ... these are not real science and need to be covered accordingly. What the pseudoscience POV-pushers are trying to do is create some false equilibrium that makes both viewpoints (real science and bullshit) look equivalent, when clearly they are not. Look at our articles on evolution and intelligent design, for instance. These are excellent articles that deal with topics that are normally the subject of anti-scientific propaganda. Thankfully, we've managed to write them in an encyclopedic tone (though it's taken a lot of work!), and so we should do the same for all science articles. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang theory is by far the most accepted theory of the beginning of the universe

One of the guys in this case is trying to paint the Big Bang Theory as a "minority viewpoint". How hysterical. As well all know, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This is a simple fact as established by redshift analysis of distant galaxies and quasars; the farther away they are, the faster they are receding; this is even expressed mathematically using Hubble's law. Any steady-state theory of the universe is totally discredited. In additional, the cosmic microwave background (as first measured by COBE and later WMAP) was seen as conclusive proof of the Big Bang almost twenty years ago. There's no real scientific dispute over the Big Bang at all. It's just like the manufactured controversies over evolution, global warming, or whether or not smoking causes cancer. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {tommysun}

Note to Cyde Weys: No one "knows" the Universe is expanding, that is a hypothesis, it is not a fact. Redshift Doppler is an assumption. It was created by adding "C" the velocity of light to Hubbles equation, and not put there by observation. None of this falsifies alternative cosmologies. And you state

Misplaced Pages strives for a neutral point of view, and so we must necessarily take the viewpoint of real science versus pseudoscientific bullshit.

Clearly you do not understand NPOV, and obviously you don't understand the science, are you saying there is no global warming? Nevermind...

Reference material

Executive summary Misplaced Pages has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Misplaced Pages uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Misplaced Pages policy. The Misplaced Pages policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of the things that makes Misplaced Pages work so well. Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice. The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read it.

Introduction: the basic concept of neutrality and why Misplaced Pages must be unbiased A key Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be "unbiased," or written from a "neutral point of view." We use these terms in a precise way that is different from the common understanding. It's crucial to grasp what it means to be neutral (in this sense)--a careful reading of this page will help.

Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Why should Misplaced Pages be unbiased?

Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false, and therefore not knowledge. Indeed, Misplaced Pages, there are many opinionated people who often disagree with each other. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Misplaced Pages works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts that not-p?

The solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics are parts of human knowledge. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" has changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know" in the sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat. We now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Misplaced Pages is an international, collaborative project. Probably, as we grow, nearly every view on every subject will (eventually) be found among our authors and readership. To avoid endless edit wars, we should agree to present each of these views fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct. And that is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral." To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Misplaced Pages is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes human knowledge in a strict sense. We should, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "human knowledge." We must make an effort to present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of them.

'There is another reason to commit ourselves to a nonbias policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this is conducive to our readers' feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence.

Science Apologist manipulates the evidence

In his own words -

Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.

To begin with, the handful of researchers are those who have confirmed Tifft's findings. Scienceapologist has removed these and replaced them with one alleged detractor And he associates Tifftshift with Creationists and geocentrics because one of the alternative explanations is that a quantized redshift would mean the galaxies are at periodic distances, with the earth at the center, IF the redshift is assumed to be a Doppler effect. In other words, If Tifft is right, and Doppler redshift is right, we are the center of the Universe. It is because we are not at the center, that proves Doppler redshift is not valid. Yet Science Apologist has managed to twist this around and equates the periodicity with creationism.

And, when I attempted to insert verifiable and reputable testimony ] (32nd para) that Hubble did not accept expansion into articles talking about redshift, it was reverted. SA's latest justification was "nonsense".

(cur) (last) 01:11, 26 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense. Hubble is irrelevant to this article.)

(cur) (last) 23:44, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (added Hubble, source and quotes)

(cur) (last) 11:29, 25 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense.)

(cur) (last) 05:23, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (hubble did not believe in expansion)

On Creationism

To equate plasma cosmology with creationism is an example of pseudoscientific claims. So, a Universe out of nothing, instantaneously, is not creationism?

ScienceApologist is a big bang advocate

from http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

Quoting ScienceApologist

"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist

On pseudoscience

I must have missed when pseudoscience entered the picture. Pseudoscience is science without testing, claims but no "objective" evidence. To make the claim that plasma cosmology is a pseudoscience indicates a lack of knowledge of what science does, and is an example of how pseudoscientists work. Every single claim of plasma cosmology has a testable at least in principle foundation. Whether it is right or wrong does not enter here, and even if found wrong does not place the data into the pseudoscientific category.

Indeed, it is the big bang theory that is founded on pseudoscience in that

A. it postulates a beginning from nothing; There is no objective evidence for this beginning from nothing, only an assummption of expansion played back in reverse which itself is based on the assumption that redshift is Doppler caused. But Hubble himself did not believe in expansion ] and the big bangers will not allow that fact in their articles which include the entire field of cosmology. SA says that the big bang is the only theory which postulates a beginning, and therefore it is the only correct theory.

B. And when the original hot big bang didn't work according to plan, that is to say observational evidence falsified the original hot big bang, the attempt to fix it depended on a entirely new kind of physics never seen before or since, the Inflation of the Universe to a size larger than it is now, INSTANTANEOUSLY, after which everything came to a stop, and then Plasma emerged. And then the mathematics of the big bang kick in again. And now the big bang works, But hardly ever to mention plasma again, depending almost entirely on gravity as the sole source of evolution leading to strange notions like black holes to explain observations (matter moving OUT) that do not work if only gravity is considered.

C. The pseudoscience of the big bang kicks in, when the admitted "theories" of the big bang paradigm, are interpreted by secondary sources to be facts. For example, the Black hole is a conjecture proposed as "the only mechanism they could think of" which would explain OUTWARD flowing matter. Yet this conjecture has been interpreted and reinterpreted until it has become fact. That translation from theory to fact is pseudoscientific. True, the original proposers did not have a devious intent, but just about everyone since has not acknowledged that the big bang is an unproven theory.

On Art LaPella

Art is SA's advocate, filling in for him when SA has nothing to say. My friend Art, says that everything I say should be discounted. That ploy is their favorite tool, because they use it to say that everything plasma cosmologists say should be discounted because, as Art would put it, after all the big bang theory is the only correct theory in town.

However that is in violation of NPOV which originally said that all views should be included in the article without any implication by the editor whether it is right or wrong.

On involved users

Where did they all come from? As far as I know the actual involved users were ScienceApologist, Joke, Jon, Elerner Art and me.

Example of pseudoscience in action today

will be found at this place ]

Without any stated reason, JBKramer destroyed, with his revert, verifiable and reputable data which supports the article's subject matter but does not support the point of view of previously named editors.

This] is how they do it. In shifts no less.

It is this behavoir which is argubably pseudoscientific to the core, and which obviously threatens the integrity of Misplaced Pages. And I do believe strongly that they do know what they are doing. They are not just mistaken...Listen to what he says here:

"My goal in making these edits is to make Misplaced Pages useful to people who want to use it as a research source."

And while he says that here, at the article he deletes very interesting evidence] , evidence that any researcher would love to know about. They know what they are doing...And they know how to talk. Tommy Mandel 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:JBKramer

Eric Lerner (User:Elerner) solicits investors and contributors on the internet

and . JBKramer 12:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman (User:Iantresman) is repetively sardonic to the point of incivility

and among others. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Continues . JBKramer 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman does not follow WP:OR to the point of being dishonest

promising references on request, requesting references that he promised from others. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman routinely venueshops with continued dishonesty

Some examples of him shopping his complaint with SA to innapropriate locales using language to rile up the locals ("deletionist" at AMA, quoting "Using someone's affiliations..." at WP:PAIN, though the guideline that contains such language is not applicable to article-space) :

, , , . As a result of his dishonest venue shopping, he was able to convince one adminstrator to block SA. This block was quickly and soundly overturned. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to User:Mangojuice's assertion, I am not "here to oppose the work of people like Lerner and their articles"

Unlike User:Elerner and User:Iantresman, who are here only to espouse their own pseudoscientific views, I have edits across a wide range of the encyclopedia - including, but not limited to correcting fair use violations, reverting random vandalism, dealing with disruptive but well-intentioned users, among hundreds of other edits. In addition, I have demanded strong sourcing on biographies where I wished we could include the unverifiable info to articles where I found the inclusion of the info to be despicable. I have defended NPOV in other junk-science contexts - attacking a probiotic spammer and repelling the constistant attempts to vandalize inflation with fringe minority POV.

My goal in making these edits is to make Misplaced Pages useful to people who want to use it as a research source. If wikipedia would prefer to be a source for fringe theories to fight with the mainstream, then please, Arbcomm, state so, so the people who care about writing a useful encyclopedia can leave. JBKramer 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Unlike User:Elerner and User:Iantresman, I have edited the article to make my POV weaker when that was the correct action - . This demonstration of good faith is sorely lacking from the pseudoscientists, those who profit from their actions and their supporters. JBKramer 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Art LaPella

I told you "I'm reluctant to criticize St. George" (ScienceApologist) "until all the dragons are gone." Tommysun is at the top of the dragon list, and I ask arbitrators to discount evidence from that source in particular. For instance, he told you "If any cosmology could be called pseudoscience, Inflation, and the fact that it can't be tested, is one of them." Cosmic inflation is mainstream science, so he shouldn't call it untestable pseudoscience without an awfully good reason. Actually, the ΛCDM model article states that that model "explains cosmic microwave background observations", therefore it's testable. The same article states "The model assumes ... These are predictions of cosmic inflation", therefore inflation is also testable. Scientists here, please correct my 2 previous sentences if necessary, but I don't think even Ian Tresman would deny them. Art LaPella 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun now disputes everything he says being discounted, by giving us yet another reason to do just that: "as Art would put it, after all the big bang theory is the only correct theory in town." Could you show us where I said that? Not where I obviously don't get along with Tommysun himself, not where I concluded that nearly all professional scientists support the Big Bang, not where I otherwise supported the Big Bang side, but where I said "the only correct theory in town"? Art LaPella 22:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Rednblu

Flawed Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines encourage the localized consensus in destroying NPOV, ...

The fault here is the text of WP:NPOV which states that SA and other well-meaning destroyers of NPOV should sally forth to rip from Misplaced Pages pages the NPOV that is wrong. And because of the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV, SA and other well-meaning destroyers of NPOV blow up Misplaced Pages's libraries just because the libraries hold books on "pseudoscience", non-standard cosmology, "crank" theories, or some other published NPOV that is wrong. And the smoking crater-holes of former NPOV libraries stretch across the entire Misplaced Pages landscape. But let us notice that the fault is the murky and self-contradictory text of Misplaced Pages policy, WP:NPOV for example, that actually orders forth these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV to blow up the Misplaced Pages's libraries that contain NPOV that dares question the consensus of the reasonable editors. --Rednblu 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dynamiting the NPOV citations that contradict their consensus dogma, ...

For today's example of well-meaning destroyers of NPOV ripping NPOV from a Misplaced Pages page, let us examine this edit in which the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV rips from the page well-sourced NPOV citations to mainstream scientific journals, such as the Astrophysical Journal, published by the University of Chicago Press that violate the localized consensus faction's conclusion of what is right and wrong about the subject of the page--here, the ripped-out NPOV citations are to the published experimental evidence from the analysis of observed spectra from 46,400 quasars for intrinsic redshift, the explicit subject of the page. I note at this link the vociferous protest against the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV ripping NPOV from the page. I also note that SA criticizes the authors Bell and McDiarmid for not distinguishing their theory as a "quantized redshift" theory, but they did not. If SA had a published article criticizing Bell and McDiarmid for not naming their theory a "quantized redshift" theory, then we could cite that. That would be NPOV fair.

This is not a content dispute; this is a flaw in the law. This edit is an example of the atrocities against NPOV that well-meaning editors perpetrate against NPOV if the Misplaced Pages community leaves it up to the localized consensus faction what NPOV is. There must be a law against what the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV has done in this edit. There has to be a law against blowing up a NPOV library--it does not matter whether the subject of the NPOV library is "pseudoscience", non-standard cosmology, "crank" theories, or some other published NPOV that is wrong.

This is not a case of misconduct. SA is a very valuable member of the Misplaced Pages community. SA and I have had many discussions over heated controversies--such as my assertion that SA's "evolution is a fact" is a mere religious dogma; here are SA's reasoned replies that made me think. SA is a rare master at reasonable heated Misplaced Pages discussion without resorting to ad hominem fallacy; I admire him for that. And I missed by seconds my lifetime chance to vote for SA's RfA; I missed getting my vote under the wire because the system stalled and took JoshuaZ's closure of the RfA first instead of my vote. And I enthusiastically would vote for SA's RfA again whenever I get the chance.

All of the above notwithstanding, the long campaign of well-meaning destroyers of NPOV ripping NPOV from Misplaced Pages pages as exemplified in this edit must stop. And there should be a law against that continuing atrocity. We should close this RfAr and reconvene in some WikiProject to rewrite the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV so that it actually 1) implements our "representing significant views fairly and without bias" rather than 2) encourages as it does now roving bands of destructive localized consensus factions ripping well-sourced NPOV from Misplaced Pages pages. --Rednblu 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ripping citations from the topics, such as "intrinsic redshift," that published scholars explicitly use to characterize their own work, ...

(SA explained on my TalkPage that he removed the NPOV citation "because it was about redshift quantization not intrinsic redshifts and has no real bearing on the article.")

I am respectfully saying that, as in this edit, some well-meaning destroyers of NPOV are correcting the terminology, classifications, and conclusions of published scholars, including the distinction between "intrinsic redshifts" and "redshift quantization"--which distinction may be crucial to support the Big Bang theory but is only one POV among many. Hence, it is a waste of any neutral editor's time to attempt to insert into the turf battle here what scholars like Russell and others have actually published about "non-velocity (intrinsic) redshift". What I am saying generally is that we need a community-wide determination about what NPOV is, a determination that is not subject to the whim of a localized consensus faction that, in this case, believes in BigBang and thereto distorts what scholars have actually written. --Rednblu 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantized redshift is evidence of intrinsic redshift. The game goies like this, post an edit in big bang and they revert it saying it doesn't mbelong here. Post an edit on alternative cosmologies and they revert saying it is already at plasma cosmology. Meanwhile the edit at plasma cosmology is reverted because quantized redshift is not a part of plasma cosmology. The net result is zero mention of quantized redshift. Plese note that now there is information about quantized redshift, BUT all the papers which confirm it do not appear in the article.Instead the article states that quantized redshift does not exist. Sorry to butt in, but SA did it first.64.12.116.66 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to say what they have to say here in this section. I have no comment about the content dispute; I do complain about significant V, RS, and NPOV being ripped from Misplaced Pages pages. You may be right about the content. I copied SA's remarks above, but you are also welcome here. --Rednblu 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dynamiting community discussions that attempt to develop legitimate measures of NPOV Due weight, ...

In any civilized society, there should be some legitimate means of measuring community-wide consensus on such questions as the Due weight to be allocated to various views in an NPOV encyclopedia. But, following the flawed Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV conspire to dynamite community-wide discussions, such as ("Per prior requests from ..."); ("yammering then can be removed"); ... ; ... to ensure that the localized consensus factions united in their POV will possess the turf of the pages that are dear to their dogma, namely the troubling intersections of science, politics, and religion. And by preventing any legitimate community-wide measurement of consensus, they force the opposition to resort to the same well-meaning dog-pack tactics that the Anti-Pseudoscience Consensus finds necessary to enforce their dogma. --Rednblu 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Art Carlson

Eric Lerner has pushed his POV on Aneutronic fusion

He has fought to exclude information on the following topics:

• Radiation hazards: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ... Well, I think you get the idea. I finally buckled under and accepted a wording that, while technically correct, is misleading. A resolution was difficult because neither one of us was citing a specific source. (Of course, my argument were better. See Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Radiation_dose.) Arguably, leaving out all mention of radioactive hazards would be the best solution in that case, but Eric Lerner did not accept that suggestion either. Note in addition the wording Eric Lerner uses to characterize the amount of radioactivity produced (according to his calculation): "the same amount of radioactivity as contained in the bodies of a classroom of children". (I once lost my wiki composure and changed this to "the same amount of radioactivity as contained in the bodies of a prison cell full of child molesters". Sorry.)
• Triple product requirements: , , , , , . This is the most extreme example of POV-pushing. The Lawson criterion is a widely use measure of the overall quality of confinement. Both the nτ form and the nTτ form are commonly used, and there are good arguments why the nTτ form is more useful. So it is essential to the article that both forms (or at least the nTτ form) be reported. It's just a shame that the nTτ form makes aneutronic fusion look ten times worse than it already looks using the nτ form. The only reason I can think of for not reporting the ratio of nTτ is to push the POV that aneutronic fusion is not that hard.
• Power density limits: , , , , , , , , . Even if a tokamak, through some miracle, could achieve an energy confinement that would allow aneutronic fuel to burn, it would still be uneconomical by over a factor a thousand because the power density would be too low. I think this is an important fact to report. Eric Lerner erased it 9 times. As with the Lawson criterion, the most plausible reason is that it doesn't jive with his point of view because it makes aneutronic fusion look so hard. Another reading is that he sees no relevance, because his pet device is the dense plasma focus, a device which he believes can achieve the improved power density required. Since as far as I know he is the only person in the world who believes this, this would also qualify as POV-pushing.

That these are a result of his POV and not simply ignorance or incompetence is strongly suggested by the pattern of his edits and the fact that he has a high stake in presenting the possibility of aneutronic fusion in a positive light, both financially and in terms of his reputation. Although there are no accusations of pseudoscience or pseudoskepticism involved, this is relevant to the current procedure because it is a case of mainstream science, which gave up on aneutronic fusion long ago, versus a small minority that still push the idea, partly out of antipathy to the scientific establishmnet.

In addition, Eric Lerner is incompetent and uncooperative in many ways. I can provide evidence, if it would be helpful, (Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Eric's justification for his reversions would be a start.) but I think the main issue here is the question of balance of mainstream and minority views in scientific articles.

Tommy Mandel has pushed his POV on Big Bang and Plasma cosmology

Tommy Mandel's sins are many. He has no understanding of science or editing and his religion seems to be plasmas. But his religion is not an issue until he pushes it into an article. I will let one example suffice. He has a long history of inserting the statement that Hubble did not believe in the expansion of the universe. , , , , , , . I don't have any idea if this is true or not. It might have a place in the article about Edwin Hubble himself, or, at a stretch, in the one about Hubble's law, but it certainly is not relevant to these articles. The data Hubble had to work with were extremely poor by any standards, and vastly inferior to those available today, so his opinion is at most of historical, but not of scientific interest.

Because of his POV, Tommy Mandel tries to insert Hubble's opinion where it doesn't belong, because he thinks it strengthens his position against the Big Bang.

Evidence presented by Asmodeus

Apparent incomprehension of the distinction between notable philosophy and non-notable pseudoscience by Pjacobi and Science Apologist

Users Pjacobi and ScienceApologist participated in the erroneous deletion of an allegedly "pseudoscientific" article whose notable topic was clearly and accurately identified as philosophy by its media sources and in Misplaced Pages:

1, 2, 3

[Note that in contravention of accepted standards, Pjacobi has implicitly discounted the mass media as a source for the verification of notability, in effect demanding that notable independent (academically uncredentialed/unaffiliated) scholars disadvantageously submit their work to academic publications in order to claim notability for it.

Note also that in the "evidence" presented above by ScienceApologist, he bitterly laments the departure of Users Hillman and Byrgenwulf, claiming that they were "harassed" by other editors who are "supporters of pseudoscience". However, the other editors in question were actually Hillman's victims, on whom Hillman had previously been disclosing personal information in violation of WP, and Byrgenwulf's victims as well, having been the subjects of repeated personal attacks by Byrgenwulf (who, by the way, originally lured ScienceApologist and his confederates to the CTMU AfD by deliberately misrepresenting the CTMU as "pseudoscience"). In fact, ScienceApologist has knowingly linked to the latest of Byrgenwulf's attacks, managing in the process to again mistake supporters of a particular philosophical theory for "supporters of pseudoscience"! If this fails to qualify as disruptive behavior, it at least demonstrates profound confusion regarding the philosophy-pseudoscience distinction.]

Questionable use of administrative authority by Pjacobi

Pjacobi engaged in slanted enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:CIV during the AfD linked above, in which he was directly involved:

4, 5

(Here are the egregious prior violations of WP:NPA and WP:LIVING, and attempted unauthorized disclosure of personal information, that were roundly ignored and thus implicitly encouraged by Pjacobi. Read the entire dialogue.)

Misleading/prejudicial slanting of biographical information by ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist, after participating in an incoherent deletional attack on an article on a notable philosophical theory (as documented above), attacked the biography of its author, attempting to falsely portray him as a member of the ID movement and thereby diminish his credibility:

8

I believe that this reflects a systematic pattern of disinformation and counterproductive behavior on the parts of Pjacobi, ScienceApologist, and others who share their particular strain of professional and philosophical prejudice, as confirmed by various other users.

(Please see this statement on the RfArb talk page) Asmodeus 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Iamthebob

 Clerk note: Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, as this is specific refutation of another's editor's evidence as opposed to general comments. Thatcher131 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tommysun

Note: I am not sure wheter this section should be here or under /Evidence, so I hope someone with moere experience can move it if necessary. I hope this doesn't ivolate WP:NPA. I will try to make this as an argument against the points that Tommysun makes on pseudoscience and not on the way that he conducts arguments, even if though I disagree with the second as much as I disagree with the first.

Summary: refutation of the points that Tommysun makes regarding pseudoscience, speficially the view that the big bang theory is pseudoscience.

Now, there exists some sort of personal matter this section because of the debate on Talk:Crop circle that we had earlier, but I cannot help but comment on this after reading what he wrote in this request for arbitration, /Evidence and Talk:/Evidence. I have lost my respect for this user; it seems clear to me that he has been consistently making personal attacks and lacks general understanding of what is science and what is pseudoscience. Take the contention Big Bang is the real pseudoscience for example:

• "The big bang theory is based on assumptions, abstractions, which observations are then fitted to."

Yes, this is true. But so is the rest of science. Since the idea of science is to explain what we observe, it can only be based off what we know: a theory tries to explain why empirical evidence is true. The same is true with any other theory: we only know what we observe, everything else we guess. The big bang theory tries to explain the observations that we have made about space; if we assume that the universe came from the big bang, the observations that we have made make sense. I do not understand how science can be done without some sort of assumption.

• "Pseudoscience is a claim to be science but not using the scientific method. Technically it is an opinion masquerading as fact."

The second sentence is incorrect, though the first may not be (depending on what definition of pseudoscience is taken). Pseudoscience is not an opinion masquerading around as a fact. It is science that is not performed well.

• "Plasma cosmology may or may not be fraught with errors, but being wrong does not make it pseudoscientific."

Tommysun claims that the big bang theory is wrong, yet he also says that it is pseudoscience. Isn't that a contradiction with what he says here? In addition, no one says that being wrong is pseudoscientific.

• "That fact that an error was found fulfills the scientific requirement."

Science doesn't have to be wrong. It almost always is, but it does not have to be.

• "To label it as pseudoscientific is what a clever pseudoscientist would do."

That may explain why Tommysun says that the big bang theory is pseudoscience.

• "It is based on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect, and it is only an opinion that this assumed velocity component indicates expansion."

Yes, the theory states that redshift is a Doppler effect. The theory may be wrong, it may be right. And although a theory may be incorrect, it is not just an "opinion," but is tested with observed data. According to what Tommysun says, science is an opinion, and hence all science is pseudoscientific.

• "These assumptions are the abstractions, then come the observations selected to fit."

I think it is done backwards: observations are first made, then "assumptions" are made that are supported by the observations. Scientists do not just sit in a dark room and think of random assumptions and then search for observations that fit them.

• "But observations didn't fit, and in order to make them fit, the Universe had to be everywhere to start. So how do you get from a point to everywhere? Inflation, not of matter, but of space. Inflation is an abstraction to make the theory fit the observations. (Interestingly, the boudary between Inflation of the physical world as we know it is plasma.) But instead of developing the plasma aspect, the remainder of big bang cosmology is based on gravitational effects. And because it based on gravity, the anomalous galaxy rotation speeds give rise to a strange yet unseen Dark Matter. And the tremendous outflowing matter from galaxies gave rise to a unseen Black hole, which in the popular press is proved whenever there is outflowing matter. And the expanding Universe gives rise to Dark Energy."

Several things about this section. The first is that theory of plasma cosmology is not proven, but is just a theory, and should not be stated like a fact. The second thing is that there is evidence supporting the existence of dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

• "Not only abstractions, but dark, black, invisible abstracting. Seems to me that these are the kinds of things real pseudoscientists claim...Creation from nothing, Inflation faster that anything, expansion via invisible Dark Energy."

Just because something doesn't defies common sense doesn't mean it is false. I'm sure that most people don't understand why velocities don't add under special relativity—even though it goes against common sense.

• "Tom Van Flandern? I wonder if you really can dis Tom Van Flandern as you do above. It seems to me that you are the unsane one here, given your abstract then observe position, I have found Tom to be very sensible, far more sensible than you SA. Can't you get sued for what you said about Tom, SA? I know, you had me blocked twice for threatening you legally, so I am not threatening you again, but if this were the real world you would be sued."

Opinion, legal threat, and personal attack..

• "In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals."

Agreed with this part. Something that everyone should keep track of, and something that I am trying to do. I think it would be wise if others followed it too, on all sides of this debate.

• The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life.

Agreed with this part as well. Well written, I am sure that many people who propose theories do not support the people who vehemently defend them instead of considering what points that the opposition makes.

• "Witness his dismissal of Tom Van Flandern by generalizations without any specific evidence."

I don't see specific evidence dismissing the big bang theory as pseudoscience being written about either...

• "I don't know what to say. Everyone says it is much better to be a nice guy. But does that work when only one party is being nice?"

I have no idea which party that is, because it definitely is not Tommysun. And it doesn't seem to be ScienceApologist either.

• "Joshua Schroeder, did I spell your name right, are you being paid by your Institute of Cosmology for editing here? What are your working hours? Just curious..."

Even more unrelated to this topic than than "the opinion that Hubble did not sure" relates to the big bang theory.

Evidence by elerner

There are three issues in this arbitration:

1) The misuse of the term pseudoscience to denigrate minority scientific views and those who advocate them. 2) The attempt to dismiss minority view points as “insignificant” “fringe’ or “marginal” and therefore ignorable on Wiki. 3) The extremely bad behavior of some Wiki editors, specifically ScienceApologist and BKramer.

I will present evidence on each of these issues. For space, and because I am most familiar with them, I limit the discussion to the two fields I am personally involved in, cosmology and fusion, and the Wiki pages on myself and plasma cosmology.

1) First, what is pseudoscience? We can ask Misplaced Pages, which says, I think quite accurately, that

“A field, practice, or body of knowledge is reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it has presented itself as scientific (i.e., as empirically and experimentally verifiable); and (2) it fails to meet the accepted norms of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method.”

It is obvious from their edits and from the evidence they present on this page that BKramer and SA do not use this definition of pseudoscience. They have never cited any verifiable sources that argue that plasma cosmology, critiques of the Big Bang, or my work in fusion violates or does not use scientific method. They have never themselves pointed out how they think scientific method is violated.

Instead, they have repeatedly made clear that they equate a minority viewpoint in science with pseudoscience. Their edits are centrally aimed at showing that “most” or “nearly all“ cosmologists think the Big Bang happened and that therefore the opposing views are rightly labeled pseudoscience. While it is indisputable that most cosmologies support the Big Bang theory today, it is a gross distortion both of the word “pseudoscience” and of the scientific process to label minority viewpoint as pseudoscience. Nearly all presently-accepted scientific theories were once minority viewpoints.

How can Wiki editors actually decide that something is verifiably pseudoscience? Our own opinions are not supposed to be the arbitrators. It does not matter if BKramer thinks the work of Hannes Alfven is pseudoscience, or if I and Burton Richter and many other scientists think that string theory does not use the scientific method because it makes no testable predictions.

Verifiable evidence that a field is NOT pseudoscience, would be for example, papers published in peer-reviewed journals, since all such journals require that published papers use the scientific method.

Verifiable evidence that a field IS pseudoscience would be, for example, articles in peer-reviewed journals that label it pseudoscience and give evidence of how scientific method is not used.

I want to emphasize that not using scientific method is entirely different from coming to wrong scientific conclusions using the method.

2) How can we distinguish between minority views and “insignificant minorities”?

The distinction that Wiki makes on this is trickier than pseudoscience. But there are several ways to do this—all of which have been abused by SA and BKramer as will be shown in section 3.

A “significant minority viewpoint” can be characterized by a number of things. Any of them alone can make a minority viewpoint significant.

One is that it has adherents who are prominent in the relevant field. For example, the most prominent exponent of plasma cosmology was Hannes Alfven, who won a Nobel Prize in physics for his contribution to the founding of the modern field of plasma physics. SA and BKramer continuously seek to obscure Alfven’s role and wrongly attribute the origin of the field to myself, obviously far less prominent than Alfven.

A second criterion is that a significant minority viewpoint receives coverage as a scientific viewpoint by verifiable sources, such as the popular scientific press or the mass media. For example, New Scientist has reported on its cover (July 2, 2005) of the criticism of the Big Bang theory. http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18625061.800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen.html My book was reviewed when it came out by the New York Times Book Review, and by the Chicago Tribune.

A third criterion is that a significant minority viewpoint is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher. This is obviously the case for plasma cosmology with many papers from the 1970’s to this year. It is currently true of opposition to the Big Bang. It is also the case for the approach to fusion that I have contributed to—the use of the dense plasma focus and the examination of aneutronic fuels like proton-boron. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers by dozens of researchers on each topic.

A fourth criterion is that the viewpoint is supported in various ways, or at least examined by major institutions. Thus, for example, plasma cosmology has been the subject of invited seminars at major institutions such as the European Southern Observatory and Goddard Space Flight Center. My work, and others, in aneutronic fusion has been supported by Jet Propulsion Laboratory http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/23572/1/96-0007.pdf. and I have had collaborations with Texas A&M University, University of Illinois and the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commissions.

3) Disruptive behavior of ScienceApologist (Joshua Schroeder) and BKramer.

Since this is already long, I will limit this only to their behavior on my own page Eric Lerner.

SA and BKramer have repeatedly introduced unsourced negative comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=80724775&oldid=80722334 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=81404823&oldid=81402854 These have included inserting the words ”he claims” or “he states” about such uncontroversial information as my BA degree and my participation in certain historical events of the ‘60’s. These words plainly imply that I am lying about my credentials or my personal history and are completely unsupported. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=80403840&oldid=80372286 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=78108330&oldid=78107372

SA and BKramer have repeatedly removed verifiable information that indicates that my work, while controversial, is part of a significant minority viewpoint. This indicates the dishonesty of their disruptive behavior. They are aware of the various evidence that shows this work is not pseudoscience or insignificant, but seek to suppress that evidence to pursue their campaign to label me—and ALL minority viewpoints in since—as crackpots. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=81226390&oldid=81223477 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=73944049&oldid=73934993